About your Search

20111201
20111231
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
that is absolutely committed to peaceful transition in syria. we are talking about mainly the syrian national council and other organizations. these are organizations that are absolutely determined to do their best to avoid civil war. that is the main event right now. it is those organizations and it is their relationships with the ongoing arab league initiative. this is the main game in town right now. >> so this went from peaceful calls for reform to a growing armed insurgency into what could eventually evolve into a civil war. the allies of assad are russia and china and they blocked you and security council condemnation of damascus. however the united states aligned with the european union, in sanctions imposed on the syrian government seemed to be having some what of an impact in oil revenue, in terms of foreign investment that has been halted, deterioration of the tourism economy of syria. >> i think we are talking about sanctions, first of all truth in advertising. my colleagues in the department of treasury are the real experts on this. we have identified over time basically seven categories
, egypt, libya and yemen and, also, the ongoing events in syria and bahrain. our speakers today are david ottaway to my left, he's a senior scholar at the woodrow wilson center and a former cairo bureau chief for "the washington post". we have the bios of the speakers are distributed, so i'll be very brief. david's last paper as part of our occasional paper series was saudi arabia in the shadow of the arab revolt. we have a few copies left. they are outside. we urge you to pick one on your way out. our second speaker is hen ray barkey -- henry bar key, a former fellow at the wilson center, he's professor of international relations at lehigh university, and i just received a copy of his latest book, "iraq: its neighbors and the united states," which he co-edited with phoebe moore and scott levin si. our third speaker is trita parsi. he's the president of the iranian -- the national iranian-american council, a former public policy scholar at the wilson center, and his upcoming book, "a single roll of the dice: obama's diplomacy with iran," will be coming out in the new year, and we have pla
're very worried about what's going to happen in sir. syria. if we want to counter the iranians, that would be the biggest blow to the iranians strategically that i can think of. >> i just, i think it's a very important question that you've put forward, and i think that the answer is in constant motion. um, because the region is changing dramatically. and, therefore, iranian calculations change dramatically. i think there's no question that the most interesting feeler that the iranians put out was in 2003 when we had smashed iraq in a war that put us on their doorstep. and even that feeler when i talked to people in iran in 2003 who were involved in putting it forward, they said, frankly, that it didn't are the full approval of the supreme leader, khamenei. so now we are in a totally different situation which iran has to calculate where it stands. um, i agree very much with the point put forward by professor menashri that the iranian regime right now is very much interested in its own survival and the survival of the elite. and if this is seen as a vehicle to help insure that future surviva
in the book in the chapter not so subtly that you call setback about iran and north korea, about syria and nonproliferation issues and you suggested various points in the chapter that the bush and administration lost its way, hattie's and to leave your away from the bush doctrine that was so well established in the first term. and i wonder if you see president bush himself lost his nerve. .. >> convey that. and there were, this was an area that had to do with north korea's nuclear aspirations and activities, building a nuclear reactor for the syrians in eastern syria that would allow them, ultimately, to produce all nuclear weapons and so forth. um, it was one where with there were significant differencesif inside the administration. i think many of those were known, but part of my interest o was in putting down the historyh of that period. and the policy debates, and i thought there were lessons to be learned. we weren't the first administration having trouble figuring how not to get the north koreans to go nuclear. the clinton administration faced similar problems. the obama administ
support of syria, iran, hamas. came to moscow to try to persuade russia. so he made a compilation that as he was negotiating with russia about matters of great importance to israel, that would be not the best time for him to criticize russian government. during last 20 years, we came to a very different conclusion. we came to conclusions at the end of the cold war, we can tell about everybody, how they could talk about affairs and we can do it without limited impact on u.s. interests and on u.s. ability to do things which are very important to us, like russia's support of iran. like continuing supplies across russia to afghanistan. affects american security and american lives. where we should be able to have our cake and eat it too, it's difficult to make a prediction but they do believe the instances when american interests and american values and some conflict. and i also believe that doing what is in the u.s. nato interest, that saves american lives and protects american security, but it also reflects americans from values and we should remember about that. >> thank you, dimitr
should be alert, eisenhower said. the presidents of the russian planes and syria would inevitably trigger british and french attacks on the air fields. if that haven't come as he liked to say, that would be in the fire. he inquired of that as the chairman of the trade chiefs whether american naval units were yclept with atomic anti-submarine weapons. not long after the president had left to gettysburg and whitman recalled that the news from the middle east looked so bad that at one point the white house staff contemplated asking the president to turn around and come back to the white house. rumors were rampant with the soviet intervention. some of the bad news came directly from moscow. the american ambassador came that the soviet move had become more ominous and the soviet leaders were prepared to take military action unless the cease-fire was quickly achieved. the staff with the president's return by flying him back instead of having to drive to gettysburg. ike arrived at the white house at 12:38 p.m.. falling short briefing, he strolled into the cabinet room where 18 men were waiting.
rights abuse, and depression of other peoples principally in syria that is no longer acceptable to the international community and so that this regime should operate without the benefit of funding from the international community. i think this amendment is one of the last, best hopes for peace to bring effective economic sanctions to bear so that a burden doesn't fall on our friends in saudi arabia or our allies in israel to do the far more tough military work that may be required to remove this common danger. many people say that you can't convince a country who is on a nuclear weapons course to reverse course and i say, well, you show your ignorance of history. because we saw the argentines give up a nuclear program, the brazilians. likely the south africans detonated a weapon and then decided to give up their program. in kazakhstan and ukraine nuclear weapons were given up, in libya nuclear weapons were given up and with effective pressure, my hope is that it can happen here. we know that. ahmadinejad is not proper rather, the regime does not enjoy the support especially of i
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)